I'm a fair minded individual and I'm trying to find a compromise here. I will not let this issue go away. I will talk about this issue for years if I can't get a letter printed in the Irving paper.
Brent Taylor reads my blog so here's the new version that someone edite the letter for moi.
I wish to reply to Brent's Taylor views, "Bloggers can take their
messages too far". He claims I was harassing employees at their
workplace, I am not a "legitimate blogger" and insinuates I am a kook.
He claims there is no point in suing me, because I have no money, even though lawsuits can have other judgments besides money.
I was also informed many unionized employees took stress leave for the summer months because of my attitude. Never once have I been approached to stop 'harassing' people. Curiously, no evidence of any wrong doing was ever made public, and the committee which banned me met in private without even giving me an opportunity to defend myself-hardly a fair 'trial'.
He also writes I would 'not come close to meeting the standards set
forth by the MBA'. This is completely untrue. The standards include:
"blogging for more than several months, posting regularly and frequently, and writing posts of some reasonable level of quality." In fact, my blog unquestioning does four of those five, and as for quality, the fact that I am in the highest 1% of viewed blogs speaks for itself. I add that Mr.Taylor's blog has not been updated since February.
His 'evidence' is primarily the often satirical nature of my site.
He states I 'take candid photos, doctor them, and add libelous comments'.
In reality I do not have the artistic capabilities of editorial
cartoonists who essentially do the exact same thing, except they also make humourous overtures about physical appearance.
I should add that I do not do the caricatures anyway, readers of my blog send the pictures to me.
As for the comment about Tom Mann being called a 'bigot' for
supporting my permanent expulsion from the legislature, the definition of a bigot is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Clearly Mr. Mann is intolerant of my work, and is extremely partial to his own politics, otherwise he'd be a lousy union leader.
It is not my fault if Mr. Taylor is not aware of the true meaning of the term bigot, and surprising that in his colourful past he has never crossed paths with the term more often.
One thing is certain. I might be banned for life from the Legislature but I will continue to blog my views on political issues.
I may not be there to asked MLA'S questions on issues of day, therefore I will ask them in my blog.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
IS THIS LETTER BETTER??? WOULD THE IRVINGS AGREE OR WOULD BRENT TAYLOR BRING THE IRVINGS IN COURT IF THEY PRINT IT???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Is this letter better? Well it is much shorter and it is more coherent. That at least is an improvement. Will the Gleaner publish it? They might although if you insisted it had to be verbatim I'd think it unlikely. The fact is Irving owned or not they don't have to publish anything you or anyone else write. I have had more than a few that never made it to print. Some were returned and asked to be edited by myself and occasionally (sometimes with an explanation) simply rejected outright. Rarely have any been printed without some editorial "adjustments" by the staff. Some actually helped some I think didn't. You know yourself sometimes while banging on the keyboard about some topics close to ones heart you can get a little carried away. Unfortunately for you I think is that you do not take to time to consider a little more thoughtfully just how you frame your thoughts. Correct me if I am wrong Charles but you have had your fair share of letters to the editor printed have you not? You are a man that has plenty of experience in what will and will not be printed in a paper (regardless of who owns it) Take Brents letter for example. Mr. Taylor might well have " insinuated YOU are a kook" but he never called YOU a kook. He knows he can't say that. On the other hand after just a few minutes on your web page it is obvious that your are calling him along with others a bigot and regardless of your little explanation of what a "bigot " means it is pretty clear you are not using it as a term of endearment so don't try to pretend you mean otherwise in your letter to the editor. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than the already converted few then you have to stop calling everyone a Bigot, Nazi or other over the top personal insult when ever you think they have personally offended you...(I suspect most don't even consider you much of a threat or a concern to be frank anyway). At the very least Charles when you do wish to be seen in the dreaded "Irving" papers editorial pages at least take your time and remember this simple suggestion. You can call a man most anything, if you take the time to do it "creatively".
That's a good post above. The only thing I'd add is a defense of sometimes calling a spade a spade. If somebody is acting like a bigot, why not call them one? When a politician is acting like a liar, why not call him one? Newspaper editorial writers have no trouble heaping praise on politicians-just read Al Hogans sycophantic ramblings sometime.
All Mr. Mann is doing is covering his ass. If union members are taking stress leave because of Charles, which is just retarded as Charles maintains he never talks to most staffers and can't bring his camera inside the legislature, then Mr. Mann should have known about it long ago and either got security, the Premier's office, or someone with a brain to send Charles a letter stating that concern. Or meet with him and discuss it, or SOMETHING.
As a union leader sending a letter is a pretty bloody easy thing to do, in fact, the secretary does it. Instead, he does nothing.
What is blatantly obvious here is that Charles is a pain in their ass and they will do whatever is necessary so that their jobs are as easy as possible. It's already virtually impossible to get hold of an MLA, and they are little help when you do (some more useless than others). Being a staffer at the legislature is about the easiest job around, and one that requires little training for a lot of pay.
So if an editorial writer can call Bernard Lord 'brilliant' for some bonehead idea, why can't the public do the same in reverse? If Mr. Mann is clearly being intolerant and partial, he is a bigot-end of story.
However, I should add that I would have chosen 'idiot', 'fascist', 'totalitarian', 'ineffective', or 'evil', for precisely those concerns mentioned above about the term bigot, especially when it was then used on Brent Taylor. No doubt there are plenty of bigots in the province, they even had their own party, but there is a genuine bias against the term, and there are plenty of other terms that do just as well.
Give me a break 10:12. By that logic everyone is a bigot because there's something or someone they disagree with. In turn if everyone is a bigot than no one is a bigot because the meaning is lost. If a term is used correctly go for it, but if it's simply used in an effort to stifle debate and/or try to censor and shut someone up, no dice.
The guy who really got you is Bernie Lord. Now you are chasing shadawos. Going after Taylor and Mann will be of not much help.
The problem with the old axiom of calling a spade as spade is the presumption that you actually in fact know that it is one. So in Mr. Mann's case if all you (and Charles) have to go on is his stance based on complaints from his union members then you have little knowledge to call him anything except "Mr. Mann." Do you have something else about the man you might like to share? Have you proof perhaps that he is a member of some White Supremacist Organization? How about a card carrying Commie? Maybe an old COR Party or Anglo or Acadian Society membership. Aside from having the audacity to cross Charles what else do you actually know? By your definition a Card carrying member of the S.P.C.A or even The public Library could be called a Bigot if they really cared deeply about it. You obviously don't agree with him but you know full well that does not make him a Bigot. I did notice that Charles has even apologized to Tom, so in the scheme of things does that mean he is no longer a bigot,or just temporarily on hold? I did notice Charles that you didn't actually address the Bigot label. Unfortunately thats the problem with carelessly tossing insults like that around when your wrong its hard not to look....bad..(a case in point I COULD have used much stronger language but not really knowing Charles well yet it might come back to haunt me)
As for the Editorial pages of news papers, what the heck do you think they are? The Editorial page has always been that part of the paper on which the editorial staff express "their" opinion. If you can look up the definition of "Bigot" then I suspect you have the ability to look up "Editorial" as well. Even more surprising, if you care to you can have your own little editorial right there on the same page supporting or objecting to anything the "paid' editorialist might say. So if you don't think a certain Premier deserves some one's praise you are free to suggest otherwise. If one can keep a civil tongue in their head that is. That seems to be a problem for some.
Now that brings us back to the actual real reason for this particular section of Charles blog in the first place. How to get his letter published. Although it seems the heat is off poor Mr. Mann I suspect Charles is still ready to discuss his concerns with Mr Taylor. Here's a thought Charles, why not take the high ground here too and tell Mr. Taylor that calling him a Bigot was perhaps an "unfortunate" choice of words. Especially in relation to the article in question. Then instead of wasting time trying to justify the unjustifiable you could actually explain the "good" your blog has done. Show Mr Taylor the error of his ways. Why you could even suggest he try to be as helpful in the future.
Only spinks would think that intolerance of others is so common that 'everyone is a bigot'. In the real world, this describes few people. It is very intolerant to support robbing a man of his basic charter right of entering the seat of democracy. I haven't come across anybody yet who has supported this decision, and Mr.Mann quite clearly fits the description of bigot-so it is easily justifiable.
I notice the same posters here with the comments that are usually directed against Charles, and rarely against those who have robbed him of his rights. I think that says it all about 'bigotness'. If Spinks were to be banned from the legislature and Mr.Mann backed it, we'd make the same comments. Intolerance is intolerance, and contrary to popular opinion, simply disagreeing with somebody is not 'intolerance'. Agreeing to ban somebody from the legislature which is a democratic right IS.
Post a Comment